document_title: Killdeer

question_text: brown and white bird with black rings around neck

text: Killdeer

text: Etymology and taxonomy[edit]

text: The killdeer was described in 1758 by Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae as Charadrius vociferus,[2] its current scientific name.[3] Linnaeus' description was based on a 1731 account of it by English naturalist Mark Catesby in his The Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands,[2] where he called it the "chattering plover".[4] The genus name Charadrius is Late Latin for a yellowish bird mentioned in the fourth-century Vulgate Bible. This word derives from the Ancient Greek kharadrios, a bird found in ravines and river valleys (kharadra, "ravine"). The specific name  vociferus  is  Latin, coming from  vox, "cry", and  ferre, "to bear".[5]

text: There are three subspecies:

text:
C. v. vociferus Linnaeus, 1758 – The nominate subspecies (originally described subspecies), found in the US (including southeastern Alaska), southern Canada, Mexico, and very locally south to Panama. It winters to northwestern South America.[3]
C. v. ternominatus Bangs & Kennard, 1920 – This subspecies is found on the Bahamas, the Greater Antilles, and Virgin Islands.[3]
C. v. peruvianus (Chapman, 1920)[a]  – This South American subspecies is found in west Ecuador, Peru, and extreme northwest Chile.[3]

text: The common name comes from its frequently heard call.[7]

text: Description[edit]

text: The killdeer is a large plover, with adults ranging in length from 20 to 28 centimetres (7.9 to 11.0 in), having a wingspan between about 59 and 63 centimetres (23 and 25 in), and usually being between 72 and 121 grams (2.5 and 4.3 oz) in weight.[3] It has a short, thick, and dark bill, flesh-coloured legs, and a red eye ring.[8] Its upperparts are mostly brown with rufous fringes,[3] its cap, back, and wings being the former colour. It has a white forehead and a white stripe behind the eye, and its lores and the upper borders to the white forehead are black. The killdeer also has a white collar that is black on its upper border. The rest of the face is brown. The breast and belly are white, with the exception of two black breast bands. The rump is red, and the tail is mostly brown. The latter also has a black subterminal band, a white terminal band, and barred white feathers on the outer portion of the tail. In flight, a white wing stripe at the base of the flight feathers is visible.[8]

text: The female's mask and breast bands tend to be more brown than those of the male. The adult of the subspecies Charadrius vociferus ternominatus is smaller and more pale and grey than the nominate, and the subspecies C. v. peruvianus is smaller than the nominate and has more extensive rufous feather fringes.[3] The juvenile is similar to the adult.[8] The upperparts of the chicks are coloured dusky and buff. Their underparts, forehead, neck, and chin are white,[3] and they have a single band across their breast.[8]

text:
Killdeer call

Problems playing this file? See media help.

text: The killdeer is a vocal species, calling even at night. Its calls include nasal notes, like "deee", "tyeeee", and "kil-deee" (the basis of its common name). During display flights, it repeats a call of "kil-deer" or "kee-deeyu". When this plover is disturbed, it emits notes in a rapid sequence, such as "kee-di-di-di". Its alarm call is a long, fast trill.[3]

text: Habitat and distribution[edit]

text: The nominate subspecies of the killdeer breeds in the US (including southeastern Alaska), southern Canada, Mexico, and very locally south to Panama. Some northern populations are migratory. This bird is resident in the southern half of its breeding range,[9] found throughout the year in most of the contiguous United States.[10] It also winters south to Central America, the West Indies, Colombia, Ecuador, and islands off Venezuela, leaving its breeding grounds after mid-July,[3] with migration peaking from August to September.[9] Migration to the breeding grounds starts in February[11] and ends in mid-May.[12] The subspecies Charadrius vociferus ternominatus is thought to be resident to the Bahamas, Greater Antilles, and Virgin Islands. C. v. peruvianus is seen year-round in west Ecuador, Peru, and extreme northwestern Chile.[3]

text: The killdeer uses beach habitats and coastal wetlands and fields during the non-breeding season.[13] It forages almost exclusively in these fields, especially those with short vegetation and with cattle (which likely shorten the vegetation) and standing water.[14] When breeding, the killdeer has a home range of about 6 hectares (15 acres), although this is generally larger when nesting more than 50 metres (160 ft) away from water.[15] Although generally a low-land species,[3] it is found up to the snowline in meadows and open lakeshores during its autumn migration.[12]

text: Behaviour[edit]

text: Breeding[edit]

text: The killdeer forms pairs on its breeding grounds right after arriving.[16] Both sexes (although the male more often than the female) advertise in flight with loud "killdeer" calls. The male also advertises by calling from a high spot,[17] scraping out a dummy nest,[18] and with killdeer flights, where it flies with slow wingbeats across its territory. Ground chases occur when a killdeer has been approached multiple times by another killdeer; similarly, flight chases occur when an individual has been approached from the air. Both are forms of territorial defense.[17]

text: The killdeer nests in open fields or other flat areas with short vegetation (usually below 1 centimetre (0.39 in) tall),[3] such as agricultural fields and meadows.[13] Nests are also sometimes located on rooftops.[3] This plover frequently breeds close to where it bred the previous year. The male seems to usually renest in the same area regardless of whether or not it retains the same mate. This does not appear to be true of the female, which has been observed to not use the same territory if it does not have the same mate.[19] The nest itself is merely a shallow depression[20] or scrape[3] in the ground, fringed by some stones and blades of grass.[20] It is generally built with white nesting material instead of darker colours; the function of this is suspected to either help keep the nest cool or conceal it.[21] In a study of piping plovers, the former function was supported, as nests were 2 to 6 °C (36 to 43 °F) cooler than the surrounding ground. The latter function also had some support, as the plovers generally chose pebbles closer in colour to the eggs; however, nests that contrasted more with the ground suffered more predation.[22] When nesting on rooftops, the killdeer may choose a flat roof, or build a nest of raised gravel, sometimes lined with white pebbles or pieces of seashells.[23]

text: The eggs of the killdeer are typically laid from mid-March to early June in the southern portion of the range, and from mid-April to mid-July in the northern part.[3] In both cases, the breeding season itself extends to about August.[24] In Puerto Rico, and possibility in other Caribbean islands, breeding occurs year-round.[3]

text: The killdeer lays a clutch of four to six eggs that are buff to beige in colour, with brown markings and black speckles. The eggs are about 38 by 27 millimetres (1.5 by 1.1 in) in size,[7] and laid at intervals of 24 to 48 hours.[3] The energy expenditure of both sexes is at its highest during egg-laying; the female needs to produce eggs, and the male needs to defend its territory.[25] Both of the sexes are closer to the nest site than usual during egg-laying and incubation, although the male is generally closer than the female during all stages of breeding. This latter fact is likely due to the male's increased investment in nest-site defense.[15] Up to five replacement clutches can be laid, and there are occasionally two broods.[3] Second broods are usually laid in nesting territory of the first brood.[16] The eggs are incubated for 22 to 28 days[7] by both the male and the female, with the former typically incubating at night.[3] The time dedicated to incubation is related to temperature, with one study recording that killdeer incubated eggs 99% of the time when the temperature was about 13 °C (55 °F), 76% of the time around 26 °C (79 °F), and 87% of the time at about 35 °C (95 °F). When it is hot (above at least 25 °C (77 °F)), incubation cools the eggs, generally through shading by one of the parents.[26]

text: About 53% of eggs are lost,[27] mainly to predators.[28] The young are precocial, starting to walk within the first days of their life. After they hatch, both parents lead them out of the nest, generally to a feeding territory with dense vegetation the chicks can hide under when a predator is near.[16] The chicks are raised, at least in single-brood pairs, by both parents, likely because of the high failure rate of nests and the need for both parents to be present to successfully raise the young.[25] In these broods, the young are usually attended by one parent at a time (generally the female) until about two weeks of age, after which both parents are occasionally seen together with the chicks. Otherwise, the non-attentive adult is at least about 23 metres (75 ft) away from the chicks. Periods of attentiveness for each parent generally last from about one to one and a half hours. When the chicks are young, this is mainly spent standing; as the chicks get older, less time is dedicated to standing. When the young are below two weeks of age, the attending adult spends little time feeding; foraging time increases as the chicks grow. The non-attentive adult defends the young most of the time when they are less than a week old, but this task steadily shifts onto the attentive adult, until about three weeks of age, when the attending parent does almost all of the defense. One parent at a time broods the chicks, and does so frequently until they are two days old. The young are brooded during rain until about 15 days after hatching and during night for about 18 days after hatching. The only time when they are not in the presence of a parent is when the parents are mating or responding to a predator or aggressive conspecific.[16]

text: When a pair has two broods, the second is usually attended by just the male (who is able to hatch the eggs on his own, unlike the female[25]). In this case, the male does not spend most of the time standing; the amount of time it does stand, though, stays constant as the chicks age. Like attentive adults in two parent broods, the sole parent increases the time spent foraging as the young age.[16]

text: The young fledge about 31 days after hatching, and generally move to moister areas in valleys and on the banks of rivers. They may be cared for by their parents for up to 10 days after they fledge, and exceptionally for 81 days after hatching. About 52% to 63% of nests fail to produce any fledged young. Breeding starts after one year of age.[3] It has a maximum lifespan of at least 10 years and 11 months.[29]

text: Feeding[edit]

text: The killdeer feeds primarily on insects (especially beetles and flies), in addition to millipedes, worms, snails, spiders, and some seeds. It opportunistically takes tree frogs and dead minnows.[3] It forages almost exclusively in fields (no matter the tide), especially those with short vegetation and with cattle (which likely shorten the vegetation) and standing water. Standing water alone does not have a significant effect on field choice unless combined with cattle.[14] Viable disseminules can be recovered from killdeer feces, indicating that this bird is important in transporting aquatic organisms.[30]

text: The killdeer uses visual cues to forage. An example of this is "foot-trembling",[31] where it stands on one foot, shaking the other in shallow water for about five seconds, pecking at any prey stirred up.[32] When feeding in fields, it sometimes follows ploughs to take earthworms disturbed to the surface.[3] The female forages significantly more than the male during most stages of breeding. The former feeds the most before and during egg-laying, the least when incubation starts (as there is little time to feed), with a return to high levels after.[24] During the non-breeding season, the killdeer forages during the night, depending on the lunar cycle. When the moon is full, it feeds more at night and roosts more during the day. Foraging at night has benefits for this bird, including increased insect abundance and reduced predation.[31]

text: Predators and parasites[edit]

text: The killdeer is parasitized by acanthocephalans, cestodes, nematodes, and trematodes.[33] It is preyed upon by herring gulls, common crows, raccoons, and striped skunks.[27] The mentioned birds and other avian predators are the majority of predators in some areas during the breeding season. Predation is not limited to eggs and chicks: mustelids, for example, can kill incubating adults.[34]

text: Responses to predators[edit]

text: The parents use various methods to distract predators during the breeding season. During egg-laying, the most common response to predators is to quietly leave the nest. As incubation starts and progresses, the intensity of predator responses increases, peaking after hatching. This is probably because it is worth more to protect the young then, as they are more likely to fledge. After hatching, reactions decrease in intensity, until a normal response is calling. This is because the young become more independent as they age.[27]

text: One reaction to predators by the killdeer is the "broken-wing display",[35] also known as "injury feigning".[36] Before displaying, this plover usually runs from its nest, making alarm calls and other disturbances. When the bird has the attention of the predator, the former turns its tail towards the latter, displaying the threatening orange colour of the rump. It then crouches, droops its wings, and lowers its tail.[35] With an increasing intensity, the wings are held higher, the tail is fanned out, and the tail becomes more depressed.[27] Another behaviour that has received attention is the "ungulate display", where the adult raises its wings, exposes its rump, lowers its head, and charges at the intruder. This can be fatal, however, to the displaying bird.[37]

text: Status[edit]

text: The killdeer is considered a least-concern species by the IUCN. This is due to its large range of about 26.3 million square kilometres (10.2 million sq mi) and population, estimated by the IUCN to be about one million birds,[1] or about two million, according to the Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive.[3] Even though the population is declining, it is not decreasing fast enough to be considered a vulnerable species.[1] It is protected in the US by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918,[38] and in Canada by the Migratory Birds Convention Act.[39]


document_title: Joey Potter

question_text: who played joey's dad on dawson's creek

question_tokens: who played joey 's dad on dawson 's creek

root

text: Joey Potter

text: Fictional biography[edit]

text: Background[edit]

text: Joey has been friends with Dawson Leery since they were very young. She lives with her older sister, Bessie, Bessie's son Alexander and (sometimes) boyfriend, Bodie. Her father, Mike, is in and out of prison for drug trafficking. Her mother, Lillian, died of breast cancer when Joey was thirteen. Joey is also the only character to appear in every episode of the series.

tag: p

text: Season 1[edit]

text: In season one, Joey is the "girl next door." She is confused by her growth into a teenager and her developing feelings for her longtime best friend Dawson, who she also admitted is her soulmate. She immediately becomes jealous when Jen Lindley arrives and steals Dawson away from her. She is intimidated by Jen, who grew up in New York and does not know how to compete. She lives with her pregnant sister Bessie, and she works for her at the Ice House, the Potter family restaurant. She is frustrated with having to deal with work and taking care of her sister along with significant helpings of teenage angst. Nonetheless, Joey manages to be helpful with the birth of Bessie's son, Alexander, as does their critical neighbor, Evelyn Ryan. One day she is convinced to compete in the beauty pageant, which she does so that she can win the cash prize. But instead of winning the contest, she wins Dawson's heart, as he finally sees past his best friend image, and realizes that he has strong romantic feelings towards her. At the end of the season, she finds herself with the opportunity of going to Paris for a year, but rejects it in favor of staying in Capeside with Dawson after she and Dawson kiss.

text: Season 2[edit]

text: At the start of the season, she and Dawson are a couple and things start out well, but Joey begins to think that she is losing her identity, as she can't see where Dawson ends and she begins. During a full moon, the new guy in town, Jack McPhee, kisses her. Dawson finds out during a school dance. After a huge argument, Joey decides to break up with him, even though for the first time they both say that they love each other. She says that she wants to "find herself," and so she breaks up with him.

text: Joey and Jack begin dating afterward but the relationship ends just as quickly when Jack realizes that he's gay. Joey's father is released from prison and comes back into her life. At first this change is uneasy, but they heal the rift between them and she gets back together with Dawson. However, Dawson finds out that Joey's father is dealing cocaine. After a fire at the restaurant which was started by rivals of Joey's father, Dawson tells his parents who advise him he needs to go to the police. He tells Joey instead. He convinces her to wear a wire, and get a confession from her father so that nothing like the fire will happen again. She gets the confession from her father and shows him the wire. Knowing that she had betrayed her father, she is understandably heartbroken and angry with Dawson. She breaks up with him and tells him she doesn't even want to know him and that she will never forgive him.

text: Season 3[edit]

text: After Dawson returns from visiting his mom over the summer, Joey offers herself to him but Dawson rejects her. Joey flees and Dawson asks Pacey Witter to keep an eye on her. As the season progresses, it becomes obvious that Pacey and Joey's friendship evolves into something deeper. Joey has a brief relationship with a college student, A.J. Moller (Robin Dunne). This relationship makes Pacey jealous and forces him to confront his true feelings for Joey. After months of build up, Pacey finally kisses Joey after she confides in him that he and Dawson are the only ones to "have ever known her in a way that no one else does." Joey initially is angry when Pacey kisses her; however, later she comes to realize that she may also have feelings for him, as well.

text: Joey took a job at a Logan's Marina, where she received unwanted sexual advances from her supervisor, Rob Logan.

text: During a trip to the home of Dawson's aunt, Gwen (Gail's sister), Joey and Pacey confront their feelings for one another. Joey confesses that being around Pacey makes her feel more alive resulting in Pacey kissing her again. Pacey tells Joey she needs to figure out what she wants and leaves. Joey stops him and pulls Pacey into a kiss, having made her choice, but Dawson's aunt Gwen sees this happen. After this realization, they begin a secret romantic relationship.

text: When Dawson finds out about Joey and Pacey's relationship, he is furious, and the friendship between the three is never the same again. Dawson gives Joey an ultimatum- him or Pacey. Joey stupidly pulls back from Pacey in an effort to mend his and her friendship with Dawson. Dawson, however, sees Pacey as his enemy and opponent in winning Joey's heart. Dawson tries his best to win Joey back, including throwing an alternative prom with Joey as his date. However, Dawson witnesses Joey and Pacey share a romantic dance before the night is over.

text: In the season finale, Joey comes to realize that while she's just fearful of losing her oldest friend, Dawson, she has fallen in love with Pacey. With Dawson's urging, Joey rushes off to tell Pacey that she loves him before he departs for a summer at sea on his boat. She joins Pacey on his boat and the two then sail off into the sunset.

text: Season 4[edit]

text: Joey and Pacey return to Capeside from their summer at sea in the fourth season, and are quickly brought back to reality when they must confront the events of the past year and the subsequent fallout. Joey is eager to mend fences, though Dawson is still hurt by what happened. Pacey's relationship with Dawson never quite recovers until the end of the series, though the two are civil and acknowledge a shared history and group of friends.

text: Joey and Dawson get chosen as class couple as a practical joke by Drue Valentine. Also, Pacey has returned to academic probation while Joey dreams of admittance to the prestigious Worthington College in Boston. On a ski trip with the senior class, Pacey and Joey finally sleep together for the first time. However, when Dawson questions her, she lies about losing her virginity. Pacey finds out about the lie and is unsettled. He is further disturbed when Joey accepts money from Dawson to attend Worthington.

text: After Joey returns from New York with Jen, she discovers from Gretchen that Pacey was arrested for public drunkness and that she also believes she may be pregnant. Bessie soon finds out that Joey believes she may be pregnant at Gail's baby shower, and Bessie argues with her about not being ready to have a baby, and having an immature boyfriend who would never cope with a child. Joey later defends herself by saying that whatever happens in her life will be different. Joey later does a test and finds out she is not pregnant, but the situation draws the sisters close together. When Joey finally reaches Pacey on the phone, she lies about the pregnancy scare and is disappointed that Pacey didn't tell her about his arrest.

text: Pacey soon begins to feel insecure about Joey's success and their relationship despite her insistence that her future lies with him, believes that he isn't good enough for her, and that their futures are worlds apart. At their senior prom, Pacey breaks up with Joey, who is devastated. The season ends with Joey headed to Worthington and Pacey to another summer at sea.

text: At the end of the season, as Dawson is preparing to leave Capeside for Los Angeles, in a scene reminiscent of Season One's ending, Dawson and Joey share a kiss.

text: Season 5[edit]

text: In season five, Joey attends Worthington University in Boston, where she meets and befriends her roommate Audrey Liddell. Joey is studying English Literature, and for a time starts seeing her college professor, David Wilder.

text: Throwing everyone for a loop, Mitch is killed in a car accident leaving Gail, Dawson and baby Lily behind. Having been a witness to her mother's painful last days, Joey thinks that she can help Dawson through the process of grieving for his father. She attends Mitch's funeral, but is rejected when she tries to help Dawson deal with his whirl of emotions. Upon returning to her dorm room in Boston, a crying Joey is comforted by Audrey. While Jen convinces Dawson to go to counseling, Joey catches Jack in a 'bid' to get one of his frat brothers in bed with Audrey during the fraternity's Winter Formal.

text: Joey later joins the band, Aggressive Mediocrity, as lead singer with Jen's cheating ex, Charlie Todd (Chad Michael Murray). They embark on a whirlwind romance before she tells him to leave to pursue his dream of being a touring musician. She has an unforgettable run-in with a mugger, who luckily for her, gets hit by a car shortly after robbing her at gunpoint. However, when she is requested to be at his side in the hospital, Joey discovers that the mugger is also a drug addict, and has a young daughter, Sammie, with his wife, Grace. When the mugger dies with Joey at his side, she returns to the waiting room, all of her belongings returned, including the money. Thinking of Sammie, whose situation reminds her of the relationship she has with her own father, Joey leaves all the money hidden in Grace's backpack.

text: At the end of the season she returns to Capeside, and Dawson confesses to her that he wants to be with her. She rejects him saying that all those feelings were in the past, but in the last episode she rushes to the airport, to declare her true feelings for Dawson. She catches him, and they kiss. Joey tells Dawson to go to Los Angeles as that is his destiny, and that they'll meet up after the summer. As she goes to get a refund, she is offered the chance to go to Paris, and the audience is left hanging.

text: Season 6[edit]

text: In the beginning of the sixth season, it is revealed that Joey didn't end up going to Paris, but went home to Capeside. After not talking all summer, she and Dawson meet up and have a one-night stand in her dorm room. The next day it is revealed that Dawson has a girlfriend in California. Joey breaks things off with him. She takes a job as a waitress at Hell's Kitchen, with the help of aspiring drummer, Emma Jones. Joey eventually falls for the bartender, Eddie Doling (Oliver Hudson). They both have a love for writing and literature, but it turns out that he is not officially a student at Worthington, as his family was too poor to afford the tuition.

text: After Christmas, Eddie disappears without telling Joey, going back to Worcester to live with his parents. In trying to find him, Joey gets some help from Harley Hetson—the 15-year-old, alienated, headstrong daughter of her snobbish and somewhat misogynist English professor, Greg Hetson (Roger Howarth), whom Joey clashes with several times during the entire season. Harley lies, telling Eddie that Joey was pregnant with his child in order to lure him back to Boston.

text: Joey and Pacey begin to rekindle their romance after sharing a kiss at his apartment. After being locked overnight in a K-Mart together, they discuss their past and current relationship. Each admits that they miss the other. They briefly reunite, but when Eddie reappears in Joey's life, she breaks it off with Pacey (ironically Pacey and Joey break up at another high school dance resembling the prom).

text: After Pacey and Dawson have another falling out after Pacey's stocks tank and Dawson loses his entire investment, Joey decides that it's time they worked things out for themselves without her in the middle because it "is not her fight" and that it never has been, and never will be. After a heart to heart with Pacey on the dock, Joey brings everyone together to help Dawson make his movie. Joey finally goes to Paris and the final episode of the season ends with her standing before the famous Eiffel Tower.

text: Series finale[edit]

text: The final two episodes are set approximately five years after the season finale. Joey is a junior editor living in New York with her writer boyfriend, Christopher (Jeremy Sisto). During this double episode, the five friends return to Capeside for Gail Leery's third wedding (but second husband). Although she had originally planned to spend the weekend with Christopher, Joey runs scared after finding an engagement ring hidden in the couple's dresser while she is packing for the trip.

text: The five friends reunite at Pacey's restaurant to reminisce about the past. Afterwards, Joey drops by Dawson's house, and the two reestablish their friendship. During Gail's wedding reception, Joey and Pacey kiss (reigniting lingering feelings between the two), but the moment is interrupted when Jen collapses. It is later discovered that Jen has a deadly heart condition.

text: At the same time, Joey ends her relationship with Christopher and chooses between Dawson and Pacey. Though she loves Dawson, she acknowledges that he is her soulmate who is tied to her childhood, a love that is pure and eternally innocent. She also cannot deny she is still in love with Pacey. After Jen's death, she decides to stop running and confront her feelings for Pacey.

text: In the midst of their romantic entanglements, Joey, Dawson, Jack, and Pacey are brought together at the Ice House, now owned by Pacey, to say goodbye to Jen, who dies from pulmonary congestion.

text: In the epilogue, Joey and Pacey watch Dawson's semi-autobiographical television series The Creek in their apartment before calling up Dawson together, where they discover he is going to meet his hero, Steven Spielberg. They have renewed their romantic relationship, and the series ends with them as a couple living together in New York.

text: Notable relationships[edit]

text:
Anderson Crawford

Fling

Beginning: "Kiss" (1.03)
Broke Up: "Kiss" (1.03)

Reason: They didn't continue because she lied about who she was.

Dawson Leery

Kiss

"Detention" (1.07)

Reason: They were dared to kiss each other despite him being with Jen.

Boyfriend

First Relationship:

Beginning: "Decisions" (1.13)
End: "The Dance" (2.06)
Reason: After Jack kisses her, she gets confused about who she really is and what she wants.

Second Relationship:

Beginning: "A Perfect Wedding" (2.18)
End: "Parental Discretion Advised" (2.22)
Reason: Dawson convinced her to get her father to confess to burning down the ice house and his drug use while she wore a wire.

Third Relationship

Beginning: Coda" (4.23)
End: "High Anxiety" (5.06)
Reason: Dawson shuts Joey out when his dad dies and eventually tells her it made him lose all interest in getting back with her.

Fourth Relationship:

Beginning: "The Kids Are Alright" (6.01)
End: "The Song Remains The Same" (6.02)
Reason: After they sleep together, she finds out he had a girlfriend.

Jack McPhee

Kiss

"Full Moon Rising" (2.05)

Reason: She was still with Dawson.

Boyfriend

Beginning: "The Reluctant Hero" (2.08)
Broke Up: "...That Is The Question" (2.15)

Reason: He finds out after writing a poem that he's gay

A.J. Moller

Boyfriend

Beginning: "Northern Lights" (3.13)
Broke Up: "Cinderella Story" (3.17)

Reason: Didn't continue to be a couple because she finds out his best friend loves him and he loves her but doesn't know it yet.

Pacey Witter

Kissed
"Double Date" (1.10)

Reason: She didn't feel the same way and he knew that she liked Dawson and Dawson liked her even though he was still hung up on Jen.

Kissed
"Cinderella Story" (3.17)
"Neverland" (3.18)

Reason: She didn't fully realize that she liked him yet.

Boyfriend

First Relationship:

Beginning: "Stolen Kisses" (3.19)
End: "The Longest Day" (3.20)
Reason: She feels guilty when Dawson finds out about their relationship and ends things with him

Second Relationship:

Beginning: "True Love" (3.23)
End: "Promicide" (4.20)
Reason: They realize that they are different and it seemed like she had a bright future ahead of her while he felt like he was being left behind.

Third Relationship:

Beginning: Castaways" (6.15)
End: "Love Bites" (6.18)
Reason: Eddie comes back.

Fourth Relationship:

Beginning: ...Must Come To An End" (6.24)
Note: Jen tells Joey her final wish is for Joey to choose between Dawson and Pacey. She chooses Pacey.

Drue Valentine

Kissed

Beginning: "The Tao of Dawson" (4.11)
End: "The Tao of Dawson" (4.11)

note: they got locked in a storage locker together, he caught her when she fell and kissed her. She pushed him away immediately, and punched him. She was in a relationship with Pacey.

Charlie Todd

Kissed

Beginning: "Something wild" (5.11)
Broke Up: "Something wild" (5.11)

Reason: Because he cheated on Jen.

Fling

Beginning: "100 Light Years From Home" (5.19)
Broke Up: "Separate Ways (Worlds Apart)" (5.20)

Reason: She tells him to go off and fulfill his dream of being a musician

Elliot

Almost Fling but never kissed

Beginning: "Sleeping Arrangements" (5.12)
Broke Up: "Guerrilla Filmmaking" (5.14)

Reason: She met him when she wasn't over Dawson. Then she thought he slept with Audrey, and after finding out he never slept with her, she gives him another second chance. But she later bails on a date with him (by claiming she was sick) to go to a thing with Wilder who she later kissed and the next day tells him she can't go out with him off-screen.

Professor David Wilder

Kissed/Almost Fling

Beginning: "Something Wilder" (5.13)
Broke Up: "In A Lonely Place" (5.16)

Reason: Joey inadvertently stands David up after getting mugged. This gives him the time to reflect upon the relationship and he realizes that he can't have an affair with a student.

Eddie Doling

First Kiss:

"Instant Karma!" (6.04)

Eddie thinks she only kissed him to get back at Dawson; so it doesn't lead to anything until later episodes.

Boyfriend

First Relationship:
Beginning: "Ego Tripping At The Gates Of Hell" (6.07)
Broke Up: "Rock Bottom" (6.13)

Reason: He left without telling her

Second Relationship:
Beginning: "Love Bites" (6.18)
Broke Up: "Catch-22" (6.20)

Reason: They didn't see a future with each other

Christopher

Boyfriend

Beginning: About a year or two before "All Good Things..." (6.23)
End: "...Must Come To An End" (6.24)

Reason: Joey breaks up with him over the phone after having found a ring in his drawer back in New York.

tag: ul

text: Holmes' thoughts on Joey Potter[edit]

text: "I'm a lot like Joey," said Holmes. "I think they saw that. I come from a small town. I was a tomboy. Joey tries to be articulate and deny that she doesn't have a lot of experience in life. Her life parallels mine, which is all about new everything—relationships, personal perceptions—and about being guarded." Holmes filmed the pilot of Dawson's Creek in Wilmington, North Carolina, during spring break of her senior year of high school in 1997.[2] When the show was picked up by The WB, Holmes moved to Wilmington, where the show filmed.[citation needed]

text: Dawson's Creek ran from 1998 to 2003, and Holmes was the only actor to appear in all 128 episodes. "It was very difficult for me to leave Wilmington, to have my little glass bubble burst and move on. I hate change. On the other hand it was refreshing to play someone else," she said in 2004.[3] Holmes confirmed that, as often happens on soaps, the character was a caricature of the actor:

text:
“
I miss her spirit, and her spunk, and I miss her anxiety. She always had these long speeches about her fears and her future and love. It was a great tool for me personally because I got to get it all out. I was able to psychoanalyze all of it everyday [sic?] with her and then I wouldn't have to do it on my own. So much of me is in Joey and it really felt like I grew up on television.[4]
”

tag: table

text: Reception[edit]

text: "Joey Potter is a headstrong, vibrant, wily, sultry, and determined go-getter. And yet, in a gloriously contradictory manner, in spite of her tough-as-nails exterior demeanor, Joey's also a frail, sometimes uncertain, emotionally sensitive, in-need-of-love person", said the show's official book.[5] Joey, named for Jo in Little Women, for years had been climbing in Dawson's bedroom window and platonically sharing his bed. Joey's mother had died from cancer when Joey was thirteen and her father, Mike (Gareth Williams), was in prison for "conspiracy to traffic in marijuana in excess of 10,000 pounds." Her harried, unmarried, and very pregnant sister, Bessie (Nina Repeta), about ten years older than Joey,[n 1] was raising her while running the Ice House restaurant, where Joey worked as a waitress. GQ described Joey as "kind of an uptight fussbudget—one who's always twisted up over doing the right thing and bungling-up ways to hook up with her crush and across the creek neighbor, Dawson."[6]

text: The 5 ft 9 in (1.75 m) tall[6][7] brunette enchanted the press, writers of both sexes commenting how Holmes was the sort of girl one wants to bring home to meet the parents and to marry.[8][6] "The Audrey Hepburn of her generation", was one typical comment.[9] Time called her "impossibly lovely" and Entertainment Weekly said she was "next up for idolhood."[10][11] Variety, reviewing the pilot, said Holmes "is a confident young performer who delivers her lines with slyness and conviction."[12] Holmes made such an impression in Hollywood, The New York Times Magazine claimed everyone was seeking to cast a "Katie Holmes type", who, the reporter claimed, "is a throwback to the 1950s: she is a smart girl next door (as opposed to the babe-o-rama blondes)"—the sort represented by her Dawson's Creek co-star Michelle Williams.[13] But her "type" was no less attractive, Arena magazine declaring her "the most coquettishly sexy woman on television. Anywhere."[14]

text: Holmes was soon on the covers of magazines such as Seventeen, TV Guide, and Rolling Stone. Jancee Dunn, an editor at Rolling Stone said she was chosen for the cover because "every time you mention Dawson's Creek you tend to get a lot of dolphin-like shrieks from teenage girls. The fact that she is drop-dead gorgeous didn't hurt either."[15]

text: Reviews were mixed. The Blade said the characters "just talk like they came from a planet ruled by Manhattan psychologists, one where small talk is punishable by death."[16] Holmes herself needed help with the dialogue. "Sometimes before we read a script, I have to get my dictionary and call people to make sure I'm pronouncing some of the words correctly."[17] The show brought her national attention and many fans back home; Toledo's Thanksgiving Day parade in November 1998 had record attendance when Holmes was named grand marshal.[18][19]

text: "As Joey", said Life magazine, "Holmes has had seismic influences on teen life... Through it all, Joey has managed to hang on to her integrity... The show—and Katie's character in particular—has touched a nerve."[20]

text: Her relationship with Pacey was included in TV Guide's list of "The Best TV Couples of All Time".[21] Flavorwire chose the show's other central pairing, Joey and Dawson, in its list of "TV's Best '90s Teen Power Couples".[22]

text: Notes[edit]

text: Jump up ^ Dawson's Creek, Season 2, confirmed Bessie was in high school when Joey was in kindergarten

tag: ol


document_title: Tax protester statutory arguments

question_text: where does it say you have to pay taxes

question_tokens: where does it say you have to pay taxes

text: Tax protester statutory arguments

text: Definition of the terms "state" and "includes"[edit]

text: In connection with various arguments that the Federal income tax should not apply to citizens or residents within the fifty states, some tax protesters have argued about the meanings of the terms "state" and "includes."

text: Tax protester arguments[edit]

text: One argument is that in most subparts and the general definition in the Internal Revenue Code defines "state" and "United States," are what other amending code sections[clarification needed][1][2] refer to as "a special definition of "state"," where the statutory definitions include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and some other territories, without mentioning the 50 states. Under this argument, the definition of "state" within the Code in general, or within those certain subparts of the Code, refers only to territories, or the possessions of the federal government, or the District of Columbia. Alaska and Hawaii were formerly included in the "special" definition of a "state" until each was removed from that general definition by the Alaska Omnibus Act[3] and the Hawaii Omnibus Act[2] when they were respectively admitted to the Union.

text: Under the following tax protester argument,[citation needed] the term "state" is used in an international meaning of "nation" or "sovereign." The argument is that this meaning refers to the foreign status of each state to every other state including the federal state, under private international law. Under this argument, all court opinions on the subject of states being foreign to each other (and also to the federal state and possessions) have upheld this concept,[citation needed] and have distinguished between meanings of foreignness by using the terms private international law and public international law. Under this argument, the latter term deals with the authority the 50 States delegated to the United States government to represent American interests outside of America, grouping all those that are bound by the United States Constitution as one body, relative to those that are not bound, such as France or Britain. Under this argument, the term "private international law" signifies the foreignness of the sovereign states, or nations, of the United States system to each other, within the system.

text: Tax protesters argue[citation needed] that the importance of the definition applies where the term "state" is the reference to the federal state as defined within a subpart or generally, then when "state" is referenced in other definitions (such as "employee") within relevant places, it has the same meaning. There are two Code sections that define "employee" within the whole of the Internal Revenue Code and both are found in parts of the Title where "state" is governed by this "special" definition. Tax protesters argue that each section defines the term "employee" as being limited to someone who works within or in the employ of a state, or who is an officer of a corporation, while the courts have ruled that the term "employee" is not limited to those persons.[citation needed] The definition of "wages" is that remuneration which is earned by an "employee."[citation needed] Tax protesters argue that normal income taxes are taxes on wages and some laws that require things like filing a return are only required of employees.

text: Tax protesters argue[citation needed] that there are also no conflicting definitions of "state" or "United States" to this interpretation in Title 26 of the United States Code (the Internal Revenue Code) -- that both of the two times either of these terms are defined as "the 50 states," the terms are localized to the subpart. Under this argument, in those two subparts that define "state" as the 50 states, there is no mention of the District of Columbia or any territories in that definition.

text: The Internal Revenue Code general definition of the term "state" in section 7701 is as follows:

text: The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.[4]

text: Some tax protesters argue that, in connection with the phrase "to include the District of Columbia," the term "include" generally should have the meaning of exclusivity of whatever is being listed if the list is made in a certain way.[citation needed] In such situations, of which the definition of "State" is an example, the argument goes that no things not in the list are included with what is included.

text: Other subparts of the Internal Revenue Code list the District of Columbia and territories of the United States in response to the definition of "State," or geographically, the "United States" (26 C.F.R § 31.3132 (e)-1)[5]

text: The Internal Revenue Code general definition of the terms "includes" and "including" is as follows:

text: The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.[6]

text: Some tax protesters argue[citation needed] that in the 1911 case of Montello Salt Co. v. Utah,[7] the Supreme Court stated that the term "including" is generally interchangeable with "also" but not necessarily, and can sometimes have a meaning of exclusivity. The Montello Salt case was not a Federal tax case, and no issues involving the meaning of the terms "state" or "includes" or "including" as used in the Internal Revenue Code were presented to or decided by the Court. The word "tax" is not found in the text of the Montello Salt decision.

text: Court rulings on the Internal Revenue Code definitions of "state" and "includes"[edit]

text: In a 1959 tax case, the United States Supreme Court indicated that the term "includes" in the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 7701) is a term of expansion, not a term of exclusivity.[8] Subsection (c) of section 7701 provides:

text: The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

text: Similarly, in the case of United States v. Condo, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated:

text: [the taxpayer's] other tax theories are equally frivolous. His assertion that 26 U.S.C. § 7343 only applies to business entities and their employees ignores the word "includes" in the statute delineating the class of persons liable. The word "includes" expands, not limits, the definition of "person" to these entities.[9]

text: No federal court has upheld the argument that the term "state" as used in the Internal Revenue Code excludes the fifty states or that the term "state" means only the "District of Columbia." The argument that the term "state" as used in Federal income tax law means only the District of Columbia and the territories was specifically rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Ward.[10] Similarly, in the case of Nieman v. Commissioner, the taxpayer argued that "Congress excludes the 50 States from the definition of "United States", for the purposes of 26 U.S.C., Subtitle A." The United States Tax Court rejected that argument, stating:

text: Petitioner attempts to argue an absurd proposition, essentially that the State of Illinois is not part of the United States. His hope is that he will find some semantic technicality which will render him exempt from Federal income tax, which applies generally to all U.S. citizens and residents. Suffice it to say, we find no support in any of the authorities petitioner cites for his position that he is not subject to Federal income tax on income he earned in Illinois.[11]

text: See also United States v. Bell (taxpayer's argument -- that the term "United States" encompasses "only territories and possessions such as the 'Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa' [ . . . ] but not the contiguous 48 states, Hawaii and Alaska" by contending that the term "include" was a term of "limitation"—was rejected).[12] See also Friesen v. Commissioner (taxpayer's argument—that Nebraska was "without" the United States and that as a Nebraska resident the taxpayer was "alien to the foreign Federal jurisdiction" and therefore not subject to income tax—was rejected).[13]

text: The argument that the United States does not include all or a part of the physical territory of the fifty states, and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).[14]

text: The private sector employee argument[edit]

text: An argument linked to the meaning of the words "includes" and "including" is the argument that for Federal income tax purposes, the term "employee" under Internal Revenue Code section 3401(c) does not include a regular, private-sector employee. The courts have uniformly rejected this argument. The text of section 3401(c), which deals only with the employer's withholding requirements and not with the employee's requirement to report Internal Revenue Code section 61 compensation for personal services (whether called wages, salaries, or any other term), is as follows:

text: For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.[15]

text: In Sullivan v. United States, taxpayer Grant W. Sullivan argued that he had not received "wages" and was not an "employee" under Internal Revenue Code section 3401(c). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled against Sullivan, stating:

text: To the extent Sullivan argues that he received no "wages" in 1983 because he was not an "employee" within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. §3401(c), that contention is meritless. Section 3401(c), which relates to income tax withholding, indicates that the definition of "employee" includes government officers and employees, elected officials, and corporate officers. The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein.[16]

text: In United States v. Ferguson, taxpayer Joy Ferguson argued that she was not an "employee" under section 3401(c), and that she therefore could not have "wages." The court ruled against her, stating:

text: The core of the dispute before the court is Ferguson's assertion that she was not an "employee" as defined by §3401(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, and therefore did not earn any "wages." [footnote omitted] As such, she argues that her Form 1040 and Form 4862 accurately reported her wages as zero. As noted by the government, Ferguson's interpretation of §3401(c) has been considered and rejected numerous times by many courts. This Court would agree with the overwhelming precedent on this issue, Ferguson's argument that she is not an employee as defined by §3401(c) is frivolous.[17]

text: In Luesse v. United States, taxpayer Chell C. Luesse of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, argued that he received no "wages" because he was not an "employee" under section 3401(c). The court ruled against Mr. Luesse.[18]

text: In Richey v. Stewart, the court stated:

text: Another familiar argument from Mr. Richey [the taxpayer] is that he is not an employee under the terms of the Internal Revenue Code, citing Section 3401(c), which states that the term "employee" includes government employees. What Mr. Richey misapprises in his reading of the statute is the inclusionary nature of the language. The Code does not exclude all other persons from taxation who are not government employees.[19]

text: In United States v. Charboneau, the court stated:

text: [ . . . ] Ms. Charboneau contends that the Code's definitions of "wage income" and "self employment income" only include income derived from individuals who work for the federal government, or whose work involves that of "the performance of the functions of a public office." Because Ms. Charboneau never worked for any federal or state government during the tax years in question, she claims that the IRS cannot make any tax assessments against her.

text: This nonsensical argument is belied by the plain language of the Internal Revenue Code itself. For example, 26 U.S.C. §3401 defines wages as "all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer...." 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) (emphasis added). The statute then goes on to define various exceptions to this broad definition of wages in certain categories of private employment, such as in the agricultural and domestic service fields, newspaper delivery, the clergy, and for wages incurred by individuals working for employers "other than the United States or an agency therof" within Puerto Rico or a possession of the United States. There is nothing in the statute limiting "wages" to solely publicly derived income. [footnotes omitted]

text: Ms. Charboneau, however, focuses on §3401(c), which states that:

text: the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.

text: 26 U.S.C. §3401(c). Setting aside the last sentence of this provision, which clearly states that officers of private corporations are considered employees for purposes of determining wages, it is obvious that within the context of this statute that the word "includes" is a term of enlargement, not of limitation, and the reference to certain public officers and employees was not intended to exclude all others. See also Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112-13 (1959) (concluding that similar provision in 26 U.S.C. §6331 dealing with levies on salaries and wages does not exclude wages of private citizens); Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813,815 ("[Section 3401(c)] does not purport to limit withholding to persons listed therein"); United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985) (the Internal Revenue Code definition of "employee" in 26 U.S.C. §3401 does not exclude privately employed wage earners);. In addition, 26 U.S.C. §7701, which provides the definitions of terms used throughout the Internal Revenue Code, states that the "terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." 26 U.S.C. §7701(c).[20]

text: In McCoy v. United States, the court stated:

text: McCoy argues she should not have to pay taxes for 1996-98 because under Code Section 3401 she was not an "employee" which she contends is defined as an elected or appointed employee or official of the federal government. McCoy clearly misconstrues Section 3401(c). The definition of "employee" includes private-sector employees, employees of the federal government, as well as elected and appointed officials. The very language of the Code is inclusive, not limited to the examples of included persons.[21]

text: Joseph Alan Fennell's argument — that the compensation he received in exchange for "non-federally privileged private sector labor" was not taxable—was rejected by the United States Tax Court.[22] Fennell appealed his Tax Court loss, but the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Fennell's challenges were "frivolous on the merits in any event."[23] Similarly, in United States v. Buras, the argument that the taxpayer can be subject to the federal income tax only if he benefits from a "privilege extended by a government agency" was ruled to be without merit.[24] See also Olson v. United States[25] and Nichols v. United States.[26]

text: A penalty of $1,000 under Internal Revenue Code section 6673 was imposed by the U.S. Tax Court on Patrick Michael Mooney for presenting frivolous arguments. The court rejected his argument that his wages earned from a private employer were not taxable. The court also rejected his argument that the term "employee" was limited to "someone performing the functions of a public office."[27]

text: The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that an argument by Robert S. Morse that his income was not subject to federal taxation because it was derived from employment in the "private sector" was frivolous, and that Morse was liable for monetary sanctions, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for making a frivolous argument.[28]

text: The argument that only certain types of taxpayers (such as only Federal government employees, corporations, nonresident aliens, residents of the District of Columbia, or residents of Federal territories) are subject to income tax and employment tax, and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).[14]

text: Arguments about the legal obligation to pay tax[edit]

text: Some tax protesters argue that there is no law imposing a Federal income tax or requiring the filing of a return, or that the government is obligated to show the tax protesters the law or tell the protesters why they are subject to tax, or that the government has refused to disclose the law.

text: The Internal Revenue Code as a statute enacted by Congress[edit]

text: A New York Times article on July 31, 2006, states that when filmmaker Aaron Russo asked an IRS spokesman for the law requiring payment of income taxes on wages and was provided a link to various documents including title 26 of the United States Code (the Internal Revenue Code), Russo denied that title 26 was the law, contending that it consisted only of IRS "regulations" and had not been enacted by Congress.

text: The version of the Internal Revenue Code published as "title 26" of the United States Code is what the Office of Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives refers to as "non-positive law." It is one of a number; titles 2, 6–8, 12, 15, 16, 19–22, 24–27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 40–43, 45, 47, 48, and 50 are "non-positive law".[29] However, according to the United States Statutes at Large, the original version of the current 1986 code was enacted by the Eighty-Third Congress of the United States as the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, with the phrase "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled." The Code was approved (signed into law) by President Dwight D. Eisenhower at 9:45 A.M., Eastern Daylight Time, on Monday, August 16, 1954, and was published as volume 68A of the United States Statutes at Large. Section 1(a)(1) of the enactment states: "The provisions of this Act set forth under the heading 'Internal Revenue Title' may be cited as the 'Internal Revenue Code of 1954'. Section 1(d) of the enactment is entitled "Enactment of Internal Revenue Title Into Law", and the text of the Code follows, beginning with the statutory Table of Contents. The enactment ends with the approval (enactment) notation on page 929. Section 2(a) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the name of the Code from the "1954" Code to the "1986" Code. The Internal Revenue Code is also separately published as title 26 of the United States Code.[30]

text: Regarding the legal status of the United States Statutes at Large, 1 U.S.C. § 112 provides (in part, with italics added):

text: The Archivist of the United States shall cause to be compiled, edited, indexed, and published, the United States Statutes at Large, which shall contain all the laws and concurrent resolutions enacted during each regular session of Congress; all proclamations by the President in the numbered series issued since the date of the adjournment of the regular session of Congress next preceding; and also any amendments to the Constitution of the United States proposed or ratified pursuant to article V thereof since that date, together with the certificate of the Archivist of the United States issued in compliance with the provision contained in section 106b of this title. [ . . . ] The United States Statutes at Large shall be legal evidence of laws, concurrent resolutions, treaties, international agreements other than treaties, proclamations by the President, and proposed or ratified amendments to the Constitution of the United States therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.

text: In the case of Ryan v. Bilby, the taxpayer, Dennis Ryan, had been convicted of failure to file tax returns. He therefore sued the district court judge, the prosecutor, his own attorney, two magistrates, and the IRS agents in the case. Ryan's lawsuit was thrown out. He then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against Ryan and stated:

text: Ryan's primary contention on appeal is that, as Congress has never enacted Title 26 of the United States Code into positive law, the defendants violated his constitutional rights by attempting to enforce it. [footnote omitted] Thus, he concludes, the district court erred by dismissing his suit. This contention is frivolous.

text: Congress's failure to enact a title [of the United States Code] into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U. S. C. §204(a) (1982) (the text of titles not enacted into positive law is only prima facie evidence of the law itself). Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law, and the defendants did not violate Ryan's rights by enforcing it.[31]

text: The Court of Appeals imposed penalties on Mr. Ryan under 28 U.S.C. section 1912, in the form of ordering him to pay double costs, for filing a frivolous appeal.[31]

text: Similarly, in Young v. Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana stated:

text: Plaintiff [the taxpayer, Jerry L. Young] asserts that the Internal Revenue Code does not apply to him. The basis for this claim is not easily found in the complaint. According to "plaintiff's answer to the court in re of defendant's pleadings," "It is a Fact that the Internal Revenue Code is NOT Postive [sic] Law. That U. S. C. Title 26 has NEVER been passed by Congress." (Emphasis in original).

text: The only support that the court can find for this argument amongst plaintiff's numerous filings is a letter dated May 7, 1981 from the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service (plaintiff's Exhibit 7). That letter does say that the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 "was not enacted by Congress as a title of the U. S. Code." But this does not in any way support plaintiff's argument that the Internal Revenue Code is not positive law. First, that very same letter, in the very same sentence, states that "the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is positive law . . .." Second, although Congress did not pass the Code as a title, it did enact the Internal Revenue Code as a separate Code, see Act of August 16, 1954, 68A Stat. 1, which was then denominated as Title 26 by the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to 1 U. S. C. §202(a). Finally, even if Title 26 was not itself enacted into positive law, that does not mean that the laws under that title are null and void. A law listed in the current edition of the United States Code is prima facie evidence of the law of the United States. See 1 U. S. C. §204(a). As the letter offered by the plaintiff points out, "The courts could require proof of the underlying statutes when a law is in a title of the code which has not been enacted into positive law." In short, this court has the discretion to recognize the Internal Revenue Code as the applicable law, or require proof of the underlying statute.

text: Consistent with that discretion, this court recognizes that the Internal Revenue Code is positive law applicable to disputes concerning whether taxes are owned by someone like the plaintiff. This court refuses to embrace the plaintiff's position that the tax laws of the United States are some kind of hoax designed by the IRS to violate the constitutional rights of United States citizens. Quite simply, the court finds plaintiff's position preposterous.[32]

text: Similarly, in United States v. McLain, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota stated:

text: [The taxpayer, Frances] McLain also contends that the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is prima facie evidence of the law on which Title 26 is based. Docket No. 163 at 4. McLain is incorrect. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted into positive law in the form of a separate code and, as amended, is the authoritative statement of the law. 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) & note; ch. 736, 68A Stat. 3, 3 (1954); Pub. L. No. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, 2095 (1986) (stating that the Internal Revenue Title enacted in 1954, as amended, may be cited as the Internal Revenue Code of 1986); Tax Analysts v. IRS, 214 F.3d 179, 182 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Moreover, while McLain is technically correct in arguing that Title 26 is merely prima facie evidence of the law, the distinction is largely academic because the relevant sections of Title 26 are identical to the relevant sections of the Internal Revenue Code.[33]

text: Similarly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has rejected the argument that "the Internal Revenue Code has not been enacted into 'positive law'".[34]

text: Some tax protesters have actually argued that the Internal Revenue Code itself says that the Code has "no legal effect." The courts have rejected this argument as well, and have imposed penalties for making this argument.[35]

text: The argument that the Internal Revenue Code is not "law," the argument that the Internal Revenue Code is not "positive law", the argument that nothing in the Internal Revenue Code imposes a requirement to file a return or pay tax, and similar arguments, have been identified as frivolous arguments for purposes of the $5,000 penalty for taking a frivolous position on a tax return.[14]

text: Specific Code provisions[edit]

text: Although the specific statutes imposing an income tax may be generally unknown to persons other than tax lawyers, certified public accountants, enrolled agents and other tax specialists, such statutes exist. Internal Revenue Code sections 1 (26 U.S.C. § 1) (relating to individuals, estates and trusts) and 11 (26 U.S.C. § 11) (relating to corporations) are examples of statutes that expressly impose an income tax on "taxable income" (with section 1(a), for example, expressly using the phrase "[t]here is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [ . . . ]" and section 11 stating: "A tax is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every corporation."). The term "taxable income" is in turn defined in section 63 (26 U.S.C. § 63) with reference to "gross income" which in turn is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 61.

text: In Holywell Corp. v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court (in a unanimous case) stated the legal significance of 26 U.S.C. § 6151:

text: The Internal Revenue Code ties the duty to pay federal income taxes to the duty to make an income tax return. See 26 U.S.C. 6151(a) ('when a return of a tax is required . . . the person required to make such return shall . . . pay such tax').[36]

text: Regarding civil monetary penalties for failure to timely pay taxes, 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(2) states (in part):

text: In case of failure—

text: (2) to pay the amount shown on tax on any return specified in paragraph (1) on or before the date prescribed for payment of such tax (determined with regard to any extension of time for payment), unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, there shall be added to the amount shown as tax on such return 0.5 percent of the amount of such tax if the failure is for not more than 1 month, with an additional 0.5 percent for each additional month or fraction thereof during which such failure continues, not exceeding 25 percent in the aggregate [ . . . ]

text: Regarding Federal income tax returns for single (unmarried) individuals, 26 U.S.C. § 6012 provides (in part):

text: Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: [ . . . ]

text: (A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual—

text: Further provisions of section 6012 refer to tax return filings for other individual taxpayers (e.g., married persons filing joint returns, surviving spouses, heads of household, married persons filing separate returns) as well as for other entities such as corporations, estates, and trusts. See also 26 U.S.C. § 6011.

text: Civil monetary penalties for failure to timely file tax returns (denominated as "additions" to tax) are mentioned at 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1). Under 26 U.S.C. § 6061, with specified, limited exceptions, "any return [ . . .] required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall be signed in accordance with forms or regulations prescribed by the Secretary" (emphasis added). The Treasury Regulations indicate that the individual's Federal income tax return must be filed on "Form 1040," "Form 1040A," etc.[37]

text: Criminal penalties for willful failure to timely file tax returns or pay taxes are mentioned at 26 U.S.C. § 7203:

text: Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution [ . . . ]

text: Under 26 U.S.C. § 7206:

text: Any person who—

text: shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

text: See also 26 U.S.C. § 7207 and 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

text: The Federal tax evasion tracks the language of statutory provisions such as Code section 1 (the imposition statute for the individual income tax), with both statutes using the word "imposed":[38]

text: Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.[39]

text: The "show me the law" argument[edit]

text: Some tax protesters such as Edward Brown [40] and tax protester organizations such as the We the People Foundation[41] have used the phrase "show me the law" to argue that the Internal Revenue Service refuses to disclose the laws that impose the legal obligation to file Federal income tax returns or pay Federal income taxes—and to argue that there must be no law imposing Federal income taxes.[42]

text: The official Internal Revenue Service web site contains references to specific code sections and case law,[43] including 26 U.S.C. § 6011 (duty to file returns in general); 26 U.S.C. § 6012 (duty to file income tax returns in particular); and 26 U.S.C. § 6151 (duty to pay tax at time return is required to be filed)[44] and 26 U.S.C. § 61 (definition of gross income) and 26 U.S.C. § 6072 (timing of duty to file).[44]

text: The year 2007 instruction book for Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, on page 83, contains references to 26 U.S.C. § 6001 (relating to record keeping); 26 U.S.C. § 6011 (general filing requirement); 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a) (specific income tax return filing requirement); and 26 U.S.C. § 6109 (duty to supply identification numbers).

text: The IRS web site includes a section on tax protester arguments with citations to statutes (including the 26 U.S.C. § 6151 duty to pay the tax) and court decisions and a page with a link to the entire Internal Revenue Code as published by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School.[45]

text: A related argument that has been raised is that the taxpayer may not be penalized for tax evasion unless the taxpayer knows that section 7201 is the specific section of the Internal Revenue Code that criminalizes the conduct. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has rejected this argument as "frivolous," and has stated:

text: [ . . . ] a person may be convicted of tax offenses only if he knows that the [Internal Revenue] Code requires him to pay. The jury was so instructed, and its verdict shows that it found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Patridge [the taxpayer] knew that he had to pay taxes on what he made from his business. It is scarcely possible to imagine otherwise: the system of offshore trusts, and the fictive "loans," show that Patridge was trying to hide income that he knew to be taxable. Why else all this folderol? Yet Patridge, in common with many other people who know what the law requires, could not say just which provisions of the Code make income taxable and prevent evasion. For that matter, many tax lawyers (and most judges) could not rattle off the citations without glancing at a book. This shortcoming of memory (perhaps, for Patridge, a deliberate avoidance of knowledge) prevents criminal punishment, [the lawyer for Patridge] insists.

text: But why would this be so? No statute says it; no opinion holds it. [ . . . Section] 7201 makes only "willful" tax evasion criminal. An act is willful for the purpose of tax law [ . . . ] when the taxpayer knows what the Code requires[,] yet sets out to foil the system. Knowledge of the law's demands does not depend on knowing the citation[,] any more than ability to watch a program on TV depends on knowing the frequency on which the signal is broadcast.[46]

text: The argument that an individual does not owe federal income tax because the Internal Revenue Service has failed to identify any federal taxing statute has been rejected by the U.S. Tax Court, and has been ruled to be frivolous.[47]

text: Demanding an explanation of tax obligations[edit]

text: A variation on the "show me the law" argument, the "there is no law requiring an income tax" argument, and the "IRS refuses to say what law makes U.S. citizens liable for income tax" argument is the contention that the IRS has an affirmative duty to respond to taxpayer demands for an answer as to why taxpayers must pay income taxes. This argument is based on tax protester theories about both constitutional law and statutory law, but the constitutional and statutory arguments will be described together here for purposes of presentation.

text: Some tax protesters claim the following language from a court decision in Schulz v. Internal Revenue Service (2005)[48] means that a taxpayer has a due process right to demand a response from the IRS as to why he or she is subject to taxation:

text: . . .absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order. . . . any individual subject to [such a court order] must be given a reasonable opportunity to comply and cannot be held in contempt, arrested, detained, or otherwise punished for refusing to comply with the original IRS summons, no matter the taxpayer's reasons, or lack of reasons for so refusing."[49]

text: The taxpayer Robert L. Schulz filed motions in a federal court to quash administrative summonses[50] issued by the IRS seeking testimony and documents in connection with an IRS investigation. The court in Schulz did not rule that a taxpayer has a right to have the IRS explain why he or she is subject to taxation, and that issue was not presented to the court. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the taxpayer's motions for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was no actual case or controversy as required by Article III of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the summonses posed no threat of injury to the taxpayer, as the IRS had not yet initiated enforcement proceedings against him. In other words, the taxpayer was not entitled to a court order to quash the summonses until the IRS went to court to demand that he comply with the summons or otherwise face sanctions—something the IRS had not yet done. Once the IRS took that action, the taxpayer would then have ample opportunity to challenge the validity of the summonses.

text: The court was emphasizing that the law requires the IRS to use the judicial process to punish lack of compliance with an administrative summons; the summons is not self-enforcing. This is true of any government request where the citizen is free to ignore the request until the government brings enforcement action. Courts adjudicate only actual controversies. In the Schulz case the court left open the possibility that the IRS might decide to drop the investigation and never enforce the summonses, or that the plaintiff might voluntarily comply with the request. Until the IRS took the taxpayer to court, the injury was merely "hypothetical."

text: While there is disagreement over exactly how "imminent" an injury has to be before a taxpayer can obtain relief from a court, this is separate from the obligation to timely file a tax return (which is imposed by statute). The Schulz court did not rule that the IRS was required to "explain" to the taxpayer why he had to pay taxes, but rather that the taxpayer could not obtain a court order to quash the summonses until the IRS first went to court against him. Additionally, the taxpayer was challenging requests for documents and testimony for an investigation (similar to challenging a subpoena or warrant), not demanding that the IRS explain to him why he was subject to taxation. The court did not rule that a taxpayer has no obligation to respond to a summons until the IRS undertakes proceedings against the taxpayer. The court essentially ruled that the taxpayer cannot be punished for failing to comply until the taxpayer has violated a court order mandating compliance.

text: A subsequent attempt by taxpayer Robert L. Schulz to obtain a court order quashing an IRS "third party" summons issued to the internet payment service known as PayPal was rejected by a Federal court in June 2006.[51]

text: In a separate case, Schulz and his We the People Foundation organization argued unsuccessfully that, based on the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the government should have a duty to respond to a taxpayer's demand for an explanation as to why taxpayers are subject to income tax. On May 8, 2007, the Schulz argument was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in We the People Foundation, Inc. v. United States.[52]

text: On August 9, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued an order including an injunction permanently barring Schulz and his We the People Foundation from (1) advising or instructing persons or entities that they are not required to file federal tax returns or pay federal taxes; (2) selling or furnishing any materials purporting to enable individuals to discontinue or stop withholding or paying federal taxes; (3) instructing, advising or assisting anyone to stop withholding or stop paying federal employment or income taxes; and (4) obstructing or advising anyone to obstruct IRS examinations, collections, or other IRS proceedings.[53]

text: The "income taxes are voluntary" argument[edit]

text: Some tax protesters argue that filing of Federal income tax returns or payment of taxes is "voluntary" (in the sense of "not a legal obligation") based on language in the text of numerous court cases, such as the following: "Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint" (from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Flora v. United States.[54])

text: Protesters cite documents that, they argue, stress the voluntary nature of taxes:

text: The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability... For the condition precedent of liability to be met, there must be a lawful assessment, either a voluntary one by the taxpayer, or one procedurally proper, by the IRS. Because this country's income tax system is based on voluntary assessment, rather than distraint [levy by distress], the Service may assess the tax only in certain circumstances and in conformity with proper procedures.

text: Our tax system is based on individual self assessment and voluntary compliance.

text: The IRS's primary task is to collect taxes under a voluntary compliance system.

text: Let's not forget the delicate nature of the voluntary compliance tax system...

text: Let me point this out now: Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day.

text: In Flora, the Supreme Court ruled that a Federal District Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit by a taxpayer for a Federal income tax refund where the taxpayer has not paid the entire amount assessed (the rule, known as the Flora full payment rule, does not apply to U.S. Tax Court cases or bankruptcy cases). Tax protesters sometimes cite the language in cases like Flora for the contention that filing of tax returns and paying taxes is not legally required, i.e., that the filing of returns and paying of taxes is, in that sense, "voluntary".

text: In the Flora case the taxpayer did not contend, and the court did not rule, that there was no legal obligation to file Federal income tax returns or pay the related taxes. The Court's ruling in Flora was almost the opposite: the taxpayer was required to pay the full amount of tax claimed by the IRS to be owed by the taxpayer before the court would even hear a lawsuit by the taxpayer against the government to determine the correct amount of tax.

text: The quoted language from Flora refers to the Federal income tax: "Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint." The key words are "voluntary" and "distraint." Like many legal terms, "voluntary" has more than one legal meaning. In the context of the quoted sentence, the income tax is voluntary in that the person bearing the economic burden of the tax is the one required to compute (assess) the amount of tax and file the related tax return. In this sense, a state sales tax is not a voluntary tax - i.e., the purchaser of the product does not compute the tax or file the related tax return. The store at which he or she bought the product computes the sales tax, charges the customer, collects the tax from him at the time of sale, prepares and files a monthly or quarterly sales tax return and remits the money to the taxing authority.

text: In Flora, the Court used the word "voluntary" in opposition to the word "distraint." Distraint is a legal term used in various contexts. For example, distraint is used to refer to the act of a landlord who withholds property of the tenant already in the landlord’s possession to secure payment of past due rent. The property "held for ransom," in a sense, is said to be "distrained," or "distressed." The key connotation of the word "distraint" is that there is often a taking of possession or withholding of property to induce a debtor to pay an obligation. Once the debt is paid, the property is released.

text: By contrast, the Internal Revenue Service does not seize the property of taxpayers each January to induce taxpayers to file a tax return and pay the tax by April 15. The IRS relies on "voluntary" compliance as the term is used in this sense.

text: In the separate sense of the word "voluntary" in which some tax protesters use the term, the obligation to pay the tax and file the return is not voluntary—for either income tax or sales tax. For example, the Internal Revenue Code is full of statutes specifically imposing the obligation to file returns and pay taxes, and imposing civil and criminal penalties for willful failure to do so on a timely basis (see above). The difference is that in the case of the income tax, the taxpayer files the return, whereas in the case of the sales tax, the seller (not the customer) files the return.

text: Likewise, the word "assessment" has more than one tax law meaning. In the quote from Flora the term "assessment" does not refer to a statutory assessment by the Internal Revenue Service under 26 U.S.C. § 6201 and 26 U.S.C. § 6322 and other statutes (i.e., a formal recordation of the tax on the books and records of the United States Department of the Treasury[55]). The term is instead used in the sense in which the taxpayer himself or herself "assesses" or computes his or her own tax in the process of preparing a tax return, prior to filing the return.

text: Similarly, the word "deficiency" has more than one technical meaning under the Internal Revenue Code: one kind of "deficiency" for purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 6211 relating to statutory notices of deficiency, U.S. Tax Court cases, etc. (meaning, usually, the excess of the amount that the IRS claims is the correct tax over the amount the taxpayer claims is the correct tax[56]—both computed without regard to how much of that tax has been paid[57]) as opposed to another kind of "deficiency" for purposes of the case law under the tax evasion and other criminal statutes (meaning, essentially, the amount of unpaid tax actually owed). Tax law, like other areas of law, is replete with words like "voluntary," "assessment," and "deficiency" that have varying meanings depending on the varying legal contexts in which those terms are used.

text: With respect to the use of the term "voluntary," no court has ever ruled that there is no legal obligation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to timely file Federal income tax returns or to timely pay Federal income taxes.

text: Failure to file tax return[edit]

text: Another argument that has been raised is the theory that the federal income tax cannot be assessed against an individual who has not filed the related federal income tax return. This argument was rejected in Carroll v. United States.[58]

text: Formal assessment of tax[edit]

text: Some tax protesters have argued that the tax must be formally assessed (officially recorded, under section 6203 of the Internal Revenue Code, on the books of the office of the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury[59]) by the Internal Revenue Service before a federal tax liability can exist. No court has upheld this argument. Internal Revenue Code section 6151(a) provides that:

text: when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate], pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return [ . . . ][60]

text: The argument that no tax is owed unless the tax is first officially assessed by the IRS was specifically rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which cited section 6151(a), in United States v. Ellett,[61] citing United States v. Daniel,[62] United States v. Hogan,[63] and United States v. Dack.[64]

text: Similarly, under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, there is no requirement that an otherwise valid federal tax be officially assessed to be considered valid in bankruptcy.[65] Indeed, until the enactment of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994,[66] the section 362(a)(6) prohibition on assessment without prior court approval applied to valid pre-petition taxes. With the 1994 Act, that restriction was eliminated by an amendment to section 362(b)(9), which now provides that although the taxing authority may assess a valid pre-petition tax without first obtaining court approval, a tax lien that would otherwise arise after the assessment will have no effect until certain specified events occur.[67] By contrast, there is no requirement that the IRS assess the tax in order for the tax to be considered a valid legal claim in the bankruptcy (i.e., in the absence of a tax lien securing the tax, an unassessed tax can be classified as a valid priority unsecured claim under 11 U.S.C. § 507 or a valid general unsecured claim, as applicable).

text: The argument that a person is not required to file a tax return or pay tax unless the Internal Revenue Service responds to the person's questions, etc., and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).[14]

text: Implementing regulations[edit]

text: Another argument made by tax protesters is that a given section of the statute (i.e., a given section of the Internal Revenue Code) must be supported by an implementing regulation for that particular section in order for that section to be legally valid, or that the lack of an implementing regulation for that section makes that section unenforceable. This argument has been uniformly rejected by the courts.[68]

text: Argument that acquittal in a criminal tax case proves there is no law imposing tax liability[edit]

text: One tax protester argument is that the acquittal of a defendant in a Federal criminal tax case proves that there is no law imposing the Federal income tax liability, or that the acquittal relieves the defendant of liability for the Federal income tax. No court has accepted this argument.

text: One well-known example of the continuing tax problems for acquitted defendants is the case of Vernice Kuglin, who was acquitted in her year 2003 criminal trial on charges of Federal income tax evasion.[69] Kuglin's tax problems were not negated by her acquittal, and in 2004 she entered a settlement with the government in which she agreed to pay over $500,000 in taxes and penalties.[70] On April 30, 2007, the Memphis Daily News reported that Kuglin's tax problems continued with the filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien against her assets in the amount of $188,025. The Memphis newspaper also stated that Kuglin had "given up her fight against paying taxes, according to a Sept. 10, 2004, Commercial Appeal story."[71]

text: Arguments about the amount to be taxed[edit]

text: Some protesters have argued that tax should be based on amounts other than the amount of money or the fair market value of property or services received.

text: Value of gold or silver coins[edit]

text: Some people have argued that with respect to the receipt of gold or silver coins, taxpayers need only report as income the "face value," and not the higher actual fair market value, of the coins. In the Joslin case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that under 26 U.S.C. § 61 and 26 C.F.R. 1.61-2(d)(1), a taxpayer who bargains to be paid for his services in legal tender (in this case, silver dollar coins) must report the income at the fair market value (numismatic value), and not at the lower face value.[72] Similarly, in the Cordner case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a taxpayer who receives Double Eagle gold coins as a distribution from a corporation must report as income the fair market value of the coins, not the lower face value.[73] In this case, where a coin, by reason of its value to collectors or by reason of the intrinsic worth of its contents, has a fair market value in excess of its face value, it is treated as "property other than money" for purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 301, resulting in taxation at fair market value.[74]

text: The Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that under 26 U.S.C. § 1001, in the exchange of Swiss francs for U.S. Double Eagle gold coins, the taxpayer is taxed at the aggregate fair market value, and not the lower face value.[75] In this case, the taxpayer and the government argued about whether the Double Eagle coin was legal tender. The court stated that it would not have to decide the issue. The court stated: "Because the key element is the excess of market value over face value, it is immaterial that such coins may be legal tender at their face value."[75]

text: In still another case, a taxpayer’s argument – that gold and silver coins should, for Federal income tax purposes, be valued at their face value, while foreign coins, in general, should be valued according to their precious metal content – was rejected. The court stated: "Coins which are not currently circulating legal tender are property to be valued at their fair market value for purposes of section 1001(b) ... This result is unaffected by the fact that such coins may still be used as legal tender at their face value."[76]

text: Taxpayers have attempted to argue that the Cordner Doctrine (see above) should not apply where the coins remain in circulation, as the coins in the Cordner case (gold coins) had been withdrawn from circulation. This argument has been rejected. In the Stoecklin case, the court ruled that the taxpayer who receives coins (in this case, silver dollar coins) as compensation for services is taxed at the fair market value of the coins, not the lower face value, regardless of whether or not the coins have been withdrawn from circulation.[77] Similarly, in the case of United States v. Kahre, the criminal defendants’ arguments – that where gold or silver coins are currently circulating, the taxpayer may report the coins as income at their face value and not at the higher fair market value – were rejected.[78] The Kahre case also made news because although the defendants lost their argument that the receipt of circulating coins could be taxed at the lower face value, the defendants were not convicted of the criminal charges against them, with the main defendant drawing a hung jury.[79] Kahre was later convicted and is currently serving a 15-year sentence in a federal penitentiary.[80][81]

text: The 861 argument[edit]

text: The 861 argument refers to Internal Revenue Code section 861, entitled "Income from sources within the United States". This provision delineates what kinds of income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States when taxes are assessed of resident aliens, nonresident aliens, and foreign corporations. The provision does not apply to U.S. citizens, but the language of Section 861 is occasionally cited by tax protesters who claim that the statute excludes some portion of the income of U.S. citizens and resident aliens from taxation under the provisions of the Code.[82]

text: Courts have uniformly held this interpretation to be incorrect, and proponents of the argument who have used it as a basis for not paying taxes have been penalized and even jailed. For example, actor Wesley Snipes was found guilty on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file Federal income tax returns, although he was acquitted of charges to conspire to defraud the US government. He was sentenced to three years in prison. Snipes has appealed that conviction.)[83][84][85]

text: Arguing the law in court[edit]

text: One contention by some tax protesters is that a taxpayer should be allowed to introduce, as evidence in court, copies of statutes, cases or other materials to persuade the jury about what the law is. Courts do not allow this procedure as, under the U.S. legal system, the general rule is that neither side in a civil or criminal case is allowed to try to prove to the jury what the law is. For example, in a murder case the defendant is not allowed to persuade the jury that there is no law against murder, or to try to interpret the law for the jury. Likewise, the prosecution is not allowed to do this. Instead, disagreements about what the law is are argued by both sides before the judge, who then makes a ruling. Prior to jury deliberations, the judge instructs the jury on the law. Examples of applications of this rule in tax controversies are United States v. Ambort,[86] United States v. Bonneau,[87] and United States v. Willie.[88]

text: In a criminal tax case, a taxpayer is allowed to present evidence about what the taxpayer believes the law to be—but only in an attempt to demonstrate, as a defense, an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, not to try to persuade the jury that the taxpayer's belief is correct. An actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law negates the "willfulness" requirement for a conviction (see Cheek v. United States).